Advertisements

David Wells <> wrote in
news::
> Any one in this group actually have on of these new computer with this
> chip out there. If so how do you find it for speed etc. I am looking
> at buying one and moving from the intel cpu's for now.

The speed is quite amazing from the benchmarks that sites are doing. I do
not however, know anyone with one for me to look at first hand. They are
quite expensive since they are the highest performing chip on the market
right now. So for speed it is the fastest available. What do you mean by
"etc"?

Advertisements

Don't have the FX right now. I run a XP2800. I'll wait till the PCI Express
motherboards come out and AMD enables dual channel memory to run with
unregistered ram. I feel it's too early to jump on the FX now.

"David Wells" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Any one in this group actually have on of these new computer with this
> chip out there. If so how do you find it for speed etc. I am looking
> at buying one and moving from the intel cpu's for now.

"DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
news:Xns9419777718F7DWobbly@216.168.3.30...
> David Wells <> wrote in
> news::
>
> > Any one in this group actually have on of these new computer with this
> > chip out there. If so how do you find it for speed etc. I am looking
> > at buying one and moving from the intel cpu's for now.
>
> The speed is quite amazing from the benchmarks that sites are doing. I do
> not however, know anyone with one for me to look at first hand. They are
> quite expensive since they are the highest performing chip on the market
> right now. So for speed it is the fastest available. What do you mean by
> "etc"?
>
> --
> AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
> email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
> website: under construction
> Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
> email/IM for rates/services

Hey Demon,

What's your take on www.tomshoardware.com comparison of the P4 EE (Extreme
Edition, actually a P4 Xeon).
The speed crown goes to Intel after all is said and done but they go on to
say:

"Intel doesn't have to decide yet whether it wants in the medium term to
build its desktop CPUs on the complex IA-64 architecture or to go with
x86-64 like AMD. But if the market should unexpectedly shift towards 64 bit,
the manufacturer still has its secret Yamhill project up its sleeve.
Since Intel already has an inkling of what the outcome of the eternal duel
between Athlon 64 and P4 will be, the manufacturer hastily introduced the
"P4 Extreme" a few days ago at the IDF (Intel Developer Forum 2003) in San
Jose. We were there: the processor is nothing more than an Intel Xeon with a
P4 label tacked onto it, complete with a 2 MB L3 cache, now offered with
FSB800 (200 MHz real FSB speed) and 3.2 GHz. To get the faster clock speed
under control, the ECC checking in the CPU was unceremoniously deactivated.
A few hours before posting this article the Athlon 64 was ahead of the
Pentium 4 Standard Edition. But with the P4 Extreme Intel managed to
considerably spoil AMD's launch. Now the latest Intel CPU wins in most of
the benchmark tests. So was it a fair move for Intel to make such cosmetic
changes prior to the actual launch of the Athlon 64? We see it as the
infantile reaction of a monopolist who's naturally inclined to act like a
general at a sand table exercise."

We are again at one of those points in the cycle where hardware exceeds the
demands of software. Apart from games (and no majorDirect X9 games have been
released) and video editing, neither of which most computer users do, most
people could get by on Pentium II chips for mainstream uses. Of course, if I
could, I would go out and get one of those AMD 64 machines in a heartbeat.

It's like a stupid dog chasing his tail... The past few months all the games
sites and mags have been prognosticating over what kind of supercharged
hardware you need to run Doom3/Half-life. Now John Carmack says D3 will run
on a 1GHz PC with a "decent" video card! WTF!!! What happened to all the
hype over FX5900 Ultras and ATI 9800 Pro's? All a bunch of marketing BS!

Of course an older card won't be able to display all the eye candy but did
anyone really expect these two games to exclude themselves from a vast
installed base of 1GHz machines with "decent" video cards?

That said, it now comes out that the FX line NVIDIA cards are _not really_
that good of a DX9 part! Again,WTF!!! I bought a FX5900 a month ago and
_Now_ this BS come out. Apparently, NVIDIA has runtime recompiling shader
programs in their beta drivers and this is how the card will run HL2. Of
course this has nothing to do with the _agreement_ between Valve and ATI...
One example of how early adoption of a part can be as painful as a kick in
the internuts!

As for the AMD 64...

Intel just unleashed an Extreme Edition P4 that takes back the top spot from
AMD, just mere days after their big FX64 release. It just doesn't pay to be
an early adopter. AMD is betting the farm that software makers, including MS
(for OS support), hardware makers, (for 64 bit driver support. Are they
_really_ going to write 64 bit drivers for all your hardware?) and you and I
go all out for 64 bit computing. MS has already stated they won't support
more than one set of 64 bit instructions for a new 64 bit OS and have
committed somewhat to AMD but what if they pull the plug on AMD if Intel
decides to crash the 64 bit party? If MS does write a version of XP for AMD
64 bit CPU's, that would be awfully nice of them. I don't think they're that
nice and AMD may well end up out of business. Once again, IMHO, it doesn't
pay to get involved in this dogfight, until one dog wins.

"bmoag" <> wrote in message
news:rUCkb.4254$...
> We are again at one of those points in the cycle where hardware exceeds
the
> demands of software. Apart from games (and no majorDirect X9 games have
been
> released) and video editing, neither of which most computer users do, most
> people could get by on Pentium II chips for mainstream uses. Of course, if
I
> could, I would go out and get one of those AMD 64 machines in a heartbeat.
>
>

Comments inline:
> Intel just unleashed an Extreme Edition P4 that takes back the top
> spot from AMD, just mere days after their big FX64 release. It just

While it does outperform the FX64, one must also consider it is largely a
paper launch. Intel does not have many of these things in the market
right now, while I can order an FX64 from a half dozen vendors.
> doesn't pay to be an early adopter. AMD is betting the farm that
> software makers, including MS (for OS support), hardware makers, (for
> 64 bit driver support. Are they _really_ going to write 64 bit drivers
> for all your hardware?) and you and I go all out for 64 bit computing.

It should be stated that the AMD64 line can run existing 32 bit code in
64 bit mode. I imagine this means it's possible to use a 64 bit driver
for my graphics card on a 64 bit OS but still use a 32 bit driver for my
LAN card.
> MS has already stated they won't support more than one set of 64 bit
> instructions for a new 64 bit OS and have committed somewhat to AMD
> but what if they pull the plug on AMD if Intel decides to crash the 64
> bit party? If MS does write a version of XP for AMD 64 bit CPU's, that

Microsoft said they are making Windows XP 64 bit and it will run on x86-
64 (AMD64 now), and that's that. Someone in the company stated that
Microsoft does not intend to develop a new product for another
instruction set. This means if Intel wants a 64 bit Windows that isn't
an Itanium server product, they have to go AMD64 or lose Windows support.
And if Intel does go AMD64, hardware vendors who write drivers for
Intel's 64-bit chips will be writing drivers for AMDs 64-bit chips at the
same time.
> would be awfully nice of them. I don't think they're that nice and AMD
> may well end up out of business. Once again, IMHO, it doesn't pay to
> get involved in this dogfight, until one dog wins.

I definitely disgree with this. An Athlon64 3200+ costs marginally more
than an AthlonXP 3200+. If you are already spending that much cash,
going for the 64-bit chip is not a bad idea. It is a fantastic 32-bit
performer right now, and 64-bit Linux benchmarks show that it definitely
brings more punch in 64-bit mode.

As for AMD going out of business, I'll tell ya what. AMD goes out of
business in the next 3 years and I owe you a case of whatever you want
(pepsi, coke, beer, etc).

With AMD64 technology, the AMD Athlon 64 processor is fully compatible
with existing software, while enabling a seamless transition to upcoming
64-bit applications. Both 32- and 64-bit applications can run
simultaneously and transparently on the same platform. AMD64 technology
enables new, cinematic computing experiences and capabilities, in
addition to increased performance. AMD64 technology allows end users to
take advantage of new innovations such as real-time encryption, more
life-like games, accurate speech interfaces, cinema-quality graphic
effects, and easy-to-use video and audio editing.

Somewhere there is also a graph that shows the 3 modes an AMD64 chip can
run in. It can run in pure 32 bit mode, hybrid 32-bit/64-bit mode, and
pure 64-bit modes.

The chip can basically be just a 32 bit processor, for older OSs like 98,
2000, XP Home/Pro, etc.

Next step up it is a 64 bit chip running a 64 bit OS. The chip can still
execute 32 bit code, and give each program access to 4 GB of memory,
memory that does not have overhead from the OS in it. A complete 4 GB of
memory.

If you go up one more step, which still requires a 64-bit OS, you have a
pure 64-bit chip.

It is also noted that unless you are running in 64-bit mode, then things
like the 8 extra registers AMD64 provides are disabled.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:39:48 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:
>derek / nul <> wrote in
>news::
>
>> Demon, I just had a look at the AMD site and find no evidence of being
>> able to run 32 bit programs in 64 bit mode.
>> I would also question how you would do this.
>>
>
>Here are a few more web links:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32467.html
>http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1466&page=2
>
>The chip can basically be just a 32 bit processor, for older OSs like 98,
>2000, XP Home/Pro, etc.
>
>Next step up it is a 64 bit chip running a 64 bit OS. The chip can still
>execute 32 bit code, and give each program access to 4 GB of memory,
>memory that does not have overhead from the OS in it. A complete 4 GB of
>memory.
>
>If you go up one more step, which still requires a 64-bit OS, you have a
>pure 64-bit chip.
>
>It is also noted that unless you are running in 64-bit mode, then things
>like the 8 extra registers AMD64 provides are disabled.
>
>http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1466&page=3
>
>The above link has the graph I refered to in my previous post, explaining
>all the operating modes of the chip.

My reason for looking at going with this new chip is a follows.
I have a 96 Dell Pentium Pro 200n which I paid 6000 at the time in
Canadian Dollors. I am just going to replace it now. So I thought if I
got this new system it should hopefully last quite a while before it
becomes old hat also.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:25:27 GMT, derek / nul <>
wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:39:48 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:
>
>>derek / nul <> wrote in
>>news::
>>
>>> Demon, I just had a look at the AMD site and find no evidence of being
>>> able to run 32 bit programs in 64 bit mode.
>>> I would also question how you would do this.
>>>
>>
>>Here are a few more web links:
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32467.html
>>http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1466&page=2
>>
>>The chip can basically be just a 32 bit processor, for older OSs like 98,
>>2000, XP Home/Pro, etc.
>>
>>Next step up it is a 64 bit chip running a 64 bit OS. The chip can still
>>execute 32 bit code, and give each program access to 4 GB of memory,
>>memory that does not have overhead from the OS in it. A complete 4 GB of
>>memory.
>>
>>If you go up one more step, which still requires a 64-bit OS, you have a
>>pure 64-bit chip.
>>
>>It is also noted that unless you are running in 64-bit mode, then things
>>like the 8 extra registers AMD64 provides are disabled.
>>
>>http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1466&page=3
>>
>>The above link has the graph I refered to in my previous post, explaining
>>all the operating modes of the chip.
>
>Demon,
>
>I am not sure you have taken in what I said.
>
>The processor can ONLY execute 32 bit code in 32 bit mode.
>
>The other 2 modes are for 64 bit code only.
>
>Derek

"derek / nul" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:39:48 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:
>
> >derek / nul <> wrote in
> >news::
> >
> >> Demon, I just had a look at the AMD site and find no evidence of being
> >> able to run 32 bit programs in 64 bit mode.
> >> I would also question how you would do this.
> >>
> >
> >Here are a few more web links:
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/32467.html
> >http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1466&page=2
> >
> >The chip can basically be just a 32 bit processor, for older OSs like 98,
> >2000, XP Home/Pro, etc.
> >
> >Next step up it is a 64 bit chip running a 64 bit OS. The chip can still
> >execute 32 bit code, and give each program access to 4 GB of memory,
> >memory that does not have overhead from the OS in it. A complete 4 GB of
> >memory.
> >
> >If you go up one more step, which still requires a 64-bit OS, you have a
> >pure 64-bit chip.
> >
> >It is also noted that unless you are running in 64-bit mode, then things
> >like the 8 extra registers AMD64 provides are disabled.
> >
> >http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1466&page=3
> >
> >The above link has the graph I refered to in my previous post, explaining
> >all the operating modes of the chip.
>
> Demon,
>
> I am not sure you have taken in what I said.
>
> The processor can ONLY execute 32 bit code in 32 bit mode.
>
> The other 2 modes are for 64 bit code only.
>
> Derek

That's correct. When running a 64 bit OS, devices need drivers that are 64
bit. Hence the _Huge_ gamble by AMD that this thing takes off. It will
literally change the current computing platform that we now know. It is not
a given that MS will write the 64 bit OS for AMD either. They only stated
they will write one and for only one set of 64 bit instructions. They also
said that it will be available only on new systems and by download. No
shrink wrapped product... sounds as if the issue is far from settled.

Also is the socket issue. The first FX64 will be tied to a particular
mainboard that will have no upgrade path. For some it's an issue, other's it
not. It's just another reason for _me_ not to jump in to soon.

If anyone thinks that Intel is going to sit on the sidelines and watch AMD
develope a 64 bit desktop computing platform and not pull out all the stops
to get their own standard in, is kidding themselves. There is an unholy
alliance between hardware and software makers that has been rearing it's
head the past few years and it will only get more intense with 64 bit issue.
No one knows where this will go. It's _not_ a sure bet that AMD will win.
The survival of the company _is_ at stake.

Steve wrote:
> "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
> news:Xns9419777718F7DWobbly@216.168.3.30...
>> David Wells <> wrote in
>> news::
>>
>>> Any one in this group actually have on of these new computer with
>>> this chip out there. If so how do you find it for speed etc. I am
>>> looking at buying one and moving from the intel cpu's for now.
>>
>> The speed is quite amazing from the benchmarks that sites are doing.
>> I do not however, know anyone with one for me to look at first hand.
>> They are quite expensive since they are the highest performing chip
>> on the market right now. So for speed it is the fastest available.
>> What do you mean by "etc"?
>>
>> --
>> AIM: FrznFoodClerk (actually me)
>> email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net (_ = m)
>> website: under construction
>> Need a technician in the south Jersey area?
>> email/IM for rates/services
>
>
> Hey Demon,
>
> What's your take on www.tomshoardware.com comparison of the P4 EE
> (Extreme Edition, actually a P4 Xeon).
> The speed crown goes to Intel after all is said and done but they go
> on to say:
>
> "Intel doesn't have to decide yet whether it wants in the medium term
> to build its desktop CPUs on the complex IA-64 architecture or to go
> with x86-64 like AMD. But if the market should unexpectedly shift
> towards 64 bit, the manufacturer still has its secret Yamhill project
> up its sleeve.
> Since Intel already has an inkling of what the outcome of the eternal
> duel between Athlon 64 and P4 will be, the manufacturer hastily
> introduced the "P4 Extreme" a few days ago at the IDF (Intel
> Developer Forum 2003) in San Jose. We were there: the processor is
> nothing more than an Intel Xeon with a P4 label tacked onto it,
> complete with a 2 MB L3 cache, now offered with FSB800 (200 MHz real
> FSB speed) and 3.2 GHz. To get the faster clock speed under control,
> the ECC checking in the CPU was unceremoniously deactivated. A few
> hours before posting this article the Athlon 64 was ahead of the
> Pentium 4 Standard Edition. But with the P4 Extreme Intel managed to
> considerably spoil AMD's launch. Now the latest Intel CPU wins in
> most of the benchmark tests. So was it a fair move for Intel to make
> such cosmetic changes prior to the actual launch of the Athlon 64? We
> see it as the infantile reaction of a monopolist who's naturally
> inclined to act like a general at a sand table exercise."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003

The P4EE goes for a THOUSAND bucks...hardly worth the margin of error
percentage that it does better in a FEW benchmarks. You can get the high
end Athlon 64 for up to but not more than 700 bucks.

> Intel just unleashed an Extreme Edition P4 that takes back the top
> spot from AMD, just mere days after their big FX64 release. It just
> doesn't pay to be an early adopter. AMD is betting the farm that
> software makers, including MS (for OS support), hardware makers, (for
> 64 bit driver support. Are they _really_ going to write 64 bit
> drivers for all your hardware?) and you and I go all out for 64 bit
> computing. MS has already stated they won't support more than one set
> of 64 bit instructions for a new 64 bit OS and have committed
> somewhat to AMD but what if they pull the plug on AMD if Intel
> decides to crash the 64 bit party? If MS does write a version of XP
> for AMD 64 bit CPU's, that would be awfully nice of them. I don't
> think they're that nice and AMD may well end up out of business. Once
> again, IMHO, it doesn't pay to get involved in this dogfight, until
> one dog wins.
>
I've seen the comparisons between the P4 Expensive Edition and the
Athlon 64s, and you are simply overstating it. The P4EE barely nudges by
the A64 in a FEW benchmarks. Overall the A64 is still the better performer
in most applications. Then we have the overhead for registered RAM (which
will change in a few months.) On top of this, we can't account for the 64
bit performance...YET. Wait till we start getting 64 bit applications (and
this is not an if, but a when). And lastly for the icing on the cake, the
P4EE goes for almost a THOUSAND dollars, and I made a mistake in my previous
post, pricewatch is showing the Athlon FX for $753 dollars...big difference.
I will agree with you on one thing though, I think its a bad idea to go in
on this one early, better to wait.

"Night_Seer" <ecamacho4 at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:...
> The P4EE goes for a THOUSAND bucks...hardly worth the margin of error
> percentage that it does better in a FEW benchmarks. You can get the high
> end Athlon 64 for up to but not more than 700 bucks.
>
> --
> Night_Seer
>
>

Price is not a deciding factor for the "gotta have it" crowd, check out the
price differnece between the XP3200+ and the P4 3.2
It seems like Intel can ruin AMD's day anytime they want to

My opinion is that most people don't even know how to utilize the power they
have and Intel and AMD push the envelope when they don't have to

For my money and use I'll stick with my XP 2500+ on my A7N8X Deluxe for at
least the next 2 years.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:20:29 -0000, DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote:
>derek / nul <> wrote in
>news::
>
>> Demon,
>>
>> I am not sure you have taken in what I said.
>>
>> The processor can ONLY execute 32 bit code in 32 bit mode.
>>
>
>No, I don't think /you/ understand what it says. Look at the chart. I
>posted a link to. Under 64-bit Compatibility mode, you can still run 32
>bit code simultaneously with 64-bit code.

With AMD64 technology, the AMD Athlon 64 processor is fully compatible with
existing software, while enabling a seamless transition to upcoming 64-bit
applications. Both 32- and 64-bit applications can run simultaneously and
transparently on the same platform.

AMD64 technology provides full speed support for x86 code base for
uncompromising 32-bit performance, with readiness for 64-bit applications

"Both 32- and 64-bit applications can run simultaneously and transparently
on the same platform." How can you simultaneously run 32 and 64 bit code
if it can't run 32 bit code in 64 bit mode? This is a highly touted
feature of AMD64. You can port your super huge get loads of benefits from
making it 64-bit database program to 64 bits, without having to port all
your other applications at the same time.

Very easily, in virtual machines, 32 bit ones and 64 bit ones.
> This is a highly touted feature of AMD64.

It has not said anywhere that 32 bit code is 'running' in 64 bit mode.
>You can port your super huge get loads of benefits from
>making it 64-bit database program to 64 bits, without having to port all
>your other applications at the same time.

32 bit code can use 64 bit drivers, in the same way that 32 bit code uses 16 bit
drivers.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!